Desantis, c'mon man.

My data was out of date. Two things happened I was unaware of. In 1961, a Supreme Court ruling mad bans on atheists unenforceable, and recently the Florida Constitution was amended to no longer exclude atheists.

Incorrect, the First Amendment grants them the right.

That may be true but Florida has a high population of Christians. So, in this world of identity politics, how can an atheist represent them?

Don't represent ideology and theology, instead represent the people.

That is why I couched the question "in this world of identity politics". I am not saying an atheist could not represent a Christian majority. I am saying that there is this obsession today of only people of a certain race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or whatever can represent people who are just like them.

I think anyone *can* represent anyone but they have to realize that is their job description. For example of a militant atheist ran to represent a majority Christian population he or she must put aside their disdain for religion otherwise they had no business running for office. For example if the people in their district want to have a Christmas parade or some other distinctly Christian event on public property, then the militant atheist politician is just going to have to suck up and let it happen. Contrary to popular opinion this would NOT be a violation of the Constitution.

The same would be true if a Christian were to run for public office in majority atheist district. Although that would be very hard to find.

"The fact of the matter is that the United States Constitution clearly prohibits any religious test for holding public office. A number of state constitutions prohibit people from holding public office if they don't believe in God, but all of those are unenforceable because the US Constitution makes them null and void."

You already know this isn't true, and had named two states with a state religion round 3 years ago when discussing the subject.

oops, my bad, I was in a rush...

"The fact of the matter is that the United States Constitution clearly prohibits any religious test for holding public office. A number of state constitutions prohibit people from holding public office if they don't believe in God, but all of those are unenforceable because the US Constitution makes them null and void."

While rare, a religious test for holding public office was not unknown. While it's been ages since this this has been required, it's a modern Supreme Court interpretation, not the US Constitution, that has made them null and void.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Religious_Test_Clause

I'm not informed enough in this plus I'm even more tired the last 2 days than usual due to lack of sleep (why can't I doze off lying in bed like I constantly do sitting in the kitchen with my hands on the keys?), so rather than synopsis this, a screenshot will have to do if that's ok.

I believe before we were just talking about state religions in general rather than religious tests. So my bad.

Because an atheist typically doesn't have religion. Only a militant atheist hates religion and everyone who belongs in a religion. The more militant they are the more the seek to destroy religion. That is why I went to militant atheist.

I know non-Christians celebrate Christmas. But if this parade or whatever had a nativity scene portrayed in it, there are certain militant atheist who would try to use the courts to stop that.

Some of them seem to specifically drive around the country looking for the next sign of Christianity on public land. They frequently have had 10 commandment monuments taken down from courthouses in a 90% or above Christian city and county.

There was a WWI monument out in the middle of nowhere on a dirt road miles away from civilization, in the Mojave Desert in California, that some atheist found out about and got their panties in a bind to have it taken down. It was a crucifix.

Those people are not representing the area the come into to have stuff taken down. They don't live there. They have no real purpose in life other than to cause strife and unrest just so they can feel morally superior. It is malignant narcissism.

Before the United States decided on "In God We Trust" being the national motto, Benjamin Franklin was lobbying hard for "Mind Your Business" instead. I wish that in some way we would have listened to Benjamin Franklin. Because if it isn't bothering anyone who lives there then Mind your own business. And if you don't live that and it bothers you then don't visit there.

If you don't like a state that prohibits atheists from holding office then don't live there. The founding fathers were real big on voting with your feet if the ballot box didn't work. Just move. If it isn't bothering anyone in that state, except for you and a handful of others, then move.

If when the Boy Scouts didn't want to allows gays or girls in their organization, if you didn't like it then start your own scouting organization that does. If a state didn't believe in gay marriage then move to a state that does. If Texas passes a bill that will allow private citizens to sue abortion doctors and that bother you then move.

This is a free country and way too much damage from the left has happened in this country. Because the left don't believe in freedom, they only believe in compliance and conformity.

Well, hello, segregated Georgia was what he was born into, and his family switched parties over the issue of civil rights, or so he says.

You didn't understand my comment either. I don't believe in identity politics. That is only an idea that only the left holds. They originated it. I think it is ridiculous. My original comment was essentially parodying that concept.

I do believe that if someone is running for any public office they should not hold any preconceived notions about their constituency. Unfortunately far too many politicians run for local offices and don't care for any of their constituencies concerns because they are using that office to springboard into a higher office. They will step on anyone who gets in their way just to make it to the top. And I am not accusing one party over another of this behavior. This behavior is fairly common in career politicians.

He frames every single one of his copypastes with identity politics!

It's funny when you make it 87.98% through one of his paragraphs and it's actually reasonable truthful, but just when it seems safe to breath or check if Hell froze over, BOOM! there it is

"And yet it was conservative Christians who put those clauses into those state amendments prohibiting people who don't believe in God from holding elected office."

I never said I thought it was a good idea. But as long as it does not affect me and as long as the majority of people in that state agree with it then that is their right. I don't have to live in Florida, nor do I have to like that law but it is not my right to change it. I live in Utah. If Utah had such a law and I could not change it at the ballot box then I have two options. Suck it up or move.

Utah has to pretty restrictive laws regarding alcohol. They don't have blue laws and it is not a dry state. However, a bartender is not allowed to mix the drinks in view of the public. You can only buy alcohol at state run liquor stores.

Do I like it? Not really. Does it affect me? Not in the slightest. I don't drink, not even beer. I do feel bad for those inconvenienced by the laws. I don't see myself fighting to have those laws changed but if they ever do change it won't bother me in the slightest unless the state all of the sudden sees a huge increase in drunk driving cases. I don't see that happening but if it did then I would campaign to bring those laws back or move.

What a fhucking liar.
You start off with some copypaste, then twist it towards the end of the paragraph to be about Leftists and Democrats as if they were some sort of species.
Sheesh, you claimed a couple of weeks ago that the Nazis were started by the Democrat Party.